Jessica A. Shea, PhD

Social Environment | Research + Consulting

project list

about

I’m a social scientist, a creative writer, and a photographer.

  • Green Space & Health

    Case Study: A Research Framework to Guide Evidence-Based Urban Green Space Planning for Health

    The Challenge Urban planners, landscape designers, and public health agencies increasingly recognize that urban green spaces (UGS) can promote human health. However, despite mounting evidence of health benefits, cities struggle to systematically use green spaces as a public health solution. A critical question remained unanswered: How much green space exposure is needed for health benefits? And more fundamentally: What specific attributes of green spaces—size, quality, accessibility, biodiversity—actually produce measurable health outcomes?

    Without clear guidance on the “dose” of green space needed or which design features matter most, cities were making costly investments in parks and greenery without confidence they would achieve intended health outcomes. Studies showed inconsistent results—some found positive health effects, others found none or even negative associations. This inconsistency left planners without actionable guidance for designing effective health-promoting green spaces.

    Research Team Approach Led by Dr. Zhang, we developed a comprehensive “dose-response” conceptual framework that fundamentally reconceptualizes how we study and understand the relationship between urban green spaces and health. Through a systematic review of 70 quantitative studies across 40 cities (2001-2015) and analysis of existing frameworks, we created a research model that:

    Defined “Dose” as Multi-Dimensional Experience: Rather than simply measuring green space quantity (area or tree cover), “dose” is defined as the composite of:

    • UGS Provision: quantity, quality, and accessibility of green spaces
    • UGS Exposure: frequency, duration, and intensity of interaction (from passive viewing to active use)

    Clarified Causal Pathways Through Mediators: Identified three main mechanisms by which green spaces affect health:

    1. Environmental effects: air quality improvement, temperature regulation, noise reduction, phytoncides from vegetation
    2. Psychological/physiological responses: stress reduction, attention restoration, parasympathetic activation
    3. Behavioral changes: increased physical activity, enhanced social interaction

    Recognized Critical Moderators: Demonstrated that health benefits vary based on:

    • Individual factors: age, gender, socioeconomic status, physical condition, nature relatedness, available time
    • Environmental factors: weather, microclimate, seasonal variations
    • Scale of analysis: neighborhood vs. city-wide assessments yield different results

    Introduced Dose-Response Thresholds: Proposed that health benefits follow a curve with critical thresholds:

    • Minimum threshold (G_min): below which no health benefit occurs
    • Maximum threshold (G_max): beyond which additional quantity yields diminishing returns
    • Quality shifts: how improving qualitative attributes (design, biodiversity, amenities) can shift the entire curve upward

    The Framework’s Value

    For Research Design: Provided structured guidance for designing studies that produce comparable, actionable results rather than conflicting evidence

    For Spatial Planning:

    • Clarified that local/neighborhood scale (not city-wide) is optimal for planning green space interventions
    • Explained why multi-scale analysis reveals patterns invisible at single scales
    • Demonstrated that larger scales mask disparities in green space provision

    For Design Practice:

    • Identified specific UGS features linked to health outcomes (see comprehensive linkage tables)
    • Showed that quality often matters more than quantity for health benefits
    • Revealed trade-offs between positive services and potential disservices (allergens, fear, maintenance issues)

    Published: Zhang, L., Tan, P. Y., & Diehl, J. A. (2017). A conceptual framework for studying urban green spaces effects on health. Journal of Urban Ecology, 3(1), jux015.

  • What Motivates People to Walk: Beyond Infrastructure

    Case Study: How Design Activates Walkable Communities

    The Challenge:

    You’ve seen this scenario: A city invests millions in walkable infrastructure—new sidewalks, improved street connectivity, mixed-use zoning. The planning department checks all the boxes. Traditional walkability metrics look great on paper.

    Then community members tell you what’s really happening: “The are sidewalks, but nobody uses them.”

    If you’re a planner, landscape architect, or public health professional, this frustration is familiar. Your infrastructure investments should be working. The data says they should be working. Yet walking behavior hasn’t changed. Health outcomes stay flat.

    Here’s what I’ve learned through my research: we’ve been measuring only half the picture. Infrastructure matters, absolutely. But there’s another critical factor that conventional walkability assessments miss entirely—and understanding this distinction can save your next project from becoming another expensive miscalculation.

    The Research Insight:

    Through research across 30 Pennsylvania municipalities, we discovered that walkable infrastructure and design quality are independent variables. Towns can score high on traditional walkability metrics while scoring low on design quality—and this combination consistently underperforms expectations.

    Our Design Quality Indicator (DQI) assessment revealed that two towns with nearly identical infrastructure (density, street connectivity, mixed land use) produced drastically different user experiences. One town featured well-maintained sidewalks, street trees, attractive buildings, and social spaces. The other had crumbling paths, no vegetation, deteriorating storefronts, and poor maintenance. Traditional walkability indices couldn’t distinguish between them.

    The data showed that only 20% of design quality variation could be explained by infrastructure measures alone. This means 80% of what makes a place feel walkable—and encourages actual walking—goes unmeasured by conventional assessments.

    What Makes the Difference:

    Design quality encompasses five critical categories that infrastructure audits miss:

    • General Quality: Overall attractiveness, maintenance standards, and spatial character (open versus enclosed)
    • Hardscape Quality: Building aesthetics, architectural complexity, historic character, and pathway materials
    • Softscape Quality: Street trees, green spaces, and plant material that create comfortable microclimates
    • Pedestrian Quality: Human-scale elements, appropriate street width, traffic calming, legibility, and amenities
    • Social Quality: Variety of gathering spaces and evidence of active pedestrian life

    These elements shape the pedestrian experience at the street level—where walking actually happens. They determine whether someone chooses to walk for daily errands, recreation, or social connection.

    Practical Applications:

    The DQI framework provides actionable metrics at three scales:

    Street-level: Identify specific segments where design improvements would have maximum impact. For example, a segment with good maintenance but low social quality might benefit from public seating or outdoor dining, rather than infrastructure overhaul.

    Neighborhood-level: Prioritize category improvements based on community goals. A neighborhood scoring low on pedestrian quality might focus on traffic calming and street trees before investing in new sidewalks.

    City-level: Differentiate between communities that need infrastructure investment versus those that need design enhancement. Design improvements (maintenance, plantings, street furniture) typically cost far less than infrastructure projects while potentially delivering comparable behavioral impact.

    The Strategic Advantage:

    For planners and developers, the DQI approach means:

    • More accurate predictions of how spaces will actually be used
    • Targeted investments that maximize return on walkability goals
    • Evidence-based prioritization when capital budgets are constrained
    • Differentiated proposals that demonstrate understanding of user experience
    • Measurable outcomes that connect design decisions to community health

    Understanding the relationship between infrastructure and design quality transforms how we approach walkable communities. It’s not enough to provide the physical elements for walking—we must create environments where people want to walk. That distinction determines whether your walkability investments deliver results or become expensive missed opportunities.

    This case study draws on peer-reviewed research published in Landscape Journal examining design quality indicators across diverse community contexts.

    Citation: Cook, J. A., Bose, M., Marshall, W. E., & Main, D. S. (2014). How does design quality add to our understanding of walkable communities?. Landscape Journal, 32(2), 151-162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.32.2.151

    Note: Jessica Shea was formerly published as Cook, J.A.

  • Health & Food Environments

    Case Study: Uncovering Hidden Food Access Inequities in Denver Neighborhoods

    The Challenge Denver city planners and public health organizations needed to understand why food access interventions (like opening new grocery stores in underserved areas) weren’t consistently improving health outcomes. Traditional methods showed that low-income neighborhoods had more food stores nearby, yet residents still experienced worse health—a confusing paradox that made it difficult to design effective interventions or allocate resources appropriately.

    A Different Approach We developed a novel health equity framework that shifted analysis from measuring “equal access” (same for everyone) to “equitable access” (meeting different needs). Using data from 926 households across five diverse Denver neighborhoods, we:

    • Applied spatial analysis (GIS) to map food environments at the individual level
    • Combined health data (BMI, dietary behaviors) with socioeconomic factors to identify systematic disadvantages
    • Measured four dimensions of food access: distance, density, affordability, and availability
    • Compared how different social groups experienced the same food environment

    With Different Results The research revealed critical insights hidden by traditional methods:

    • Disadvantaged groups (low-income Black and Hispanic women) lived closer to grocery stores but chose to shop at stores farther away that were significantly more expensive
    • Despite appearing to have “better access,” disadvantaged groups faced systematic barriers including store quality, cultural appropriateness, safety concerns, and acceptance of food assistance programs
    • Traditional place-based approaches that “control for” social differences were actually hiding the real inequities

    A Different Impact We demonstrated that effective food access interventions must account for how different communities experience and use their food environment. And, we provided an actionable framework for policymakers to understand why simply adding grocery stores doesn’t reduce health disparities

    Published: Diehl, J. A., Heard, D., Lockhart, S., & Main, D. S. (2020). Access in the food environment: a health equity approach reveals unequal opportunity. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 40(1), 69-81.

  • Transforming Community Engagement

    Case Study: Transforming Community Engagement from Formal to Authentic

    The Challenge Planning departments and community organizations struggle with traditional community engagement approaches that often fail to capture authentic input from diverse residents. Formal charrettes, public workshops, and town halls frequently attract only the most vocal or advantaged community members, while marginalized populations—including elderly residents, low-income families, and non-English speakers—remain unheard. Organizations needed a more flexible, inclusive approach that could adapt to different cultural contexts and elicit genuine community perspectives rather than just counting participants.

    My Approach I developed an innovative community engagement pedagogy that shifts from highly structured formal methods to flexible, informal interactions that meet people where they are. Through two real-world projects—one in Singapore’s Whampoa neighborhood (aging population) and one in Bangalore’s Hebbal settlement (unplanned urban community)—I created and tested a methodology that:

    • Built foundational knowledge in participatory theory, addressing two critical flaws in traditional practice: the false assumption that communities are homogeneous, and the tendency to privilege expert knowledge over local knowledge
    • Empowered stakeholders to design their own engagement strategies rather than imposing predetermined formats
    • Created low-barrier interactions in informal settings (hawker centers, parks, local shops) where residents naturally gather
    • Integrated multiple engagement methods including face-to-face surveys, observation, informal conversations, and visual tools
    • Addressed cultural and language barriers through strategic use of translators and culturally-sensitive question design
    • Focused on problem-setting, not just problem-solving—allowing communities to frame challenges in their own terms

    Key Innovation: Informal Over Formal Rather than extracting residents from their daily routines to attend formal events, the approach brings engagement to community spaces. In Whampoa, this meant conversations at the hawker center over coffee. In Hebbal, it meant meeting residents at their shops and in the streets with visual survey tools that overcame literacy barriers.

    The Process

    1. Foundation Building: Introduced stakeholders to critical theories of knowledge, degrees of participation, and the problematic assumptions underlying traditional engagement
    2. Strategy Development: Facilitated workshops where teams designed context-appropriate engagement approaches
    3. Flexible Implementation: Supported informal interactions that allowed for organic conversations and follow-up questions
    4. Sense-Making: Guided analysis workshops using SWOT and visioning exercises to synthesize community input
    5. Integration: Helped teams translate community insights into actionable design interventions
    6. Reflection: Facilitated evaluation of what worked, what didn’t, and how to improve

    Results & Impact

    More Authentic Community Input:

    • Participants felt comfortable expressing themselves freely, including criticisms of government and authorities they wouldn’t share in formal settings
    • Discovered local knowledge unavailable through secondary data (e.g., demolished buildings, historical significance of spaces)
    • Reached elderly Chinese speakers, low-income residents, and illiterate community members typically excluded from formal processes

    Designs That Better Reflect Needs:

    • 85% of participants (11 of 13 in Hebbal; majority in Whampoa) integrated community findings directly into design interventions
    • Uncovered community preferences (e.g., community farming over individual gardens) that shaped program priorities
    • Identified the hawker center as social hub and void decks for introverted activities—insights that informed spatial design

    Reduced Conflict Through Understanding:

    • Acknowledged diversity within communities rather than seeking false consensus
    • Built trust through repeated informal interactions rather than one-time formal events
    • Allowed residents to “problem-frame” on their own terms, revealing underlying concerns beyond surface complaints

    More Inclusive Participation:

    • Engaged elderly residents with 20+ years of local knowledge in Whampoa
    • Reached religiously and economically diverse populations in Hebbal
    • Overcame language barriers through visual tools and cultural interpreters
    • Met people in familiar spaces where they felt safe and comfortable

    Skills Transfer:

    • 100% of participants in Whampoa rated community engagement as important to design
    • 79% (11 of 14) in Hebbal planned to engage in community-based work in their careers
    • Participants developed confidence in navigating unstructured situations and became “street smart” in community interactions

    Transferable Value This methodology demonstrates that meaningful community engagement doesn’t require extensive resources, long timelines, or formal institutional backing. It works in:

    • Time-constrained projects (9-day site visit in Bangalore yielded actionable insights)
    • Cross-cultural contexts (Singapore to India)
    • Low-resource settings (informal settlements to established neighborhoods)
    • Linguistically diverse communities (multiple languages, literacy barriers)

    Services Offered Based on this proven methodology, I provide:

    • Staff training in informal community engagement methods and participatory theory
    • Strategy development for context-appropriate engagement approaches
    • Facilitation of community interactions, sense-making workshops, and design integration
    • Cultural interpretation and adaptation of methods across diverse contexts

    Key Insight The most effective community engagement happens when we question who participates, whose knowledge counts, and who defines the problem. By moving from extraction (pulling residents into our formal spaces) to immersion (entering community spaces with humility), we create conditions for authentic participation that produces better, more sustainable, and more equitable outcomes.

    Published: Diehl, J. A., & Yong, K. W. (2018). Active learning in a participatory design studio: Enabling students to reach out to communities. Paper presented at Great Asian Streets Symposium / Pacific Rim Community Design Network / Structures for Inclusion. Dec 14-16, 2018. Singapore, SINGPORE.